It's past the announced deadline and we have enough votes to close the vote.
Voting status
==
+1: 5 votes.
PMC members:
* Anthony Baker
* Ernest Burghardt
* Sai Boorlagadda
* Nabarun Nag
Committers:
* Ryan McMahon
-0: 2 votes
* Dan Smith
* Jacob Barrett
-1: zero votes
The relea
+1
I reviewed our prior releases (particularly during incubation) and we’ve
typically handled minor LICENSE corrections in the next release. Since that
the file is already fixed I’m fine moving forward.
Anthony
> On Dec 11, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> I’ve reviewed the r
I’ve reviewed the release candidate. I’ll cast my vote after thinking about
the correct way to apply [1] since the geode-native LICENSE is missing cotire
(see develop branch) [2].
Reviewed:
- verified tags
- verified signatures and sha’s
- verified no binaries in source distributions
- verifi
+1 on the release, agree with Sai regarding the geode-native default
version for this source release
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:40 AM Sai Boorlagadda
wrote:
> Thanks Naba. I couldn't get this test to pass.
>
> Anyways if it still counts +1 for the release. I am okay to release native
> code if th
Thanks Naba. I couldn't get this test to pass.
Anyways if it still counts +1 for the release. I am okay to release native
code if the version doesn't default to 1.8.0 as we are not including
binaries.
Sai
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:15 AM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> The java bits generate a property
The java bits generate a property file that goes in the source release that
encapsulates all the version info. Maybe native should too.
> On Dec 11, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Ernest Burghardt wrote:
>
> If the community desires the default dev version to match the release,
> let's file a JIRA and chang
If the community desires the default dev version to match the release,
let's file a JIRA and change this... anyone else have an opinion on this
default version?
Thanks!
EB
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:28 PM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> -0
>
> I don’t think a user should have to specify a version when bu
Hi Sai,
I tried running the test on the source distribution using IntelliJ and
gradle scripts. I have not encountered the failure.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:20 PM Sai Boorlagadda
wrote:
> -0
>
> - Ran examples
> - Building geode from source distribution or release branch co
-0
- Ran examples
- Building geode from source distribution or release branch consistently
fails 1 unit test
org.apache.geode.internal.cache.partitioned.rebalance.PartitionedRegionLoadModelJUnitTest
> testRedundancySatisfactionPreferRemoteIp FAILED
As CI is green on unit tests, I am considering t
-0
I don’t think a user should have to specify a version when building the source
release of geode-native. If you don’t specify a version it defaults to the
development version of 0.0.42. It should probably default to the source release
version.
Outside of that issue the native sources build a
-0.
Code looks good to me and it passes geode-release-check. But I'd really
like to see some people who have worked on the native code sign off on this
release. We haven't released the native code before, and I don't know how
to validate it other than just to see that it compiles, which doesn't sa
+1
- Ran all examples
- Ran gfsh, created region, performed basic entry operations
- Verified SHAs
- Verified signatures
Ryan
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 4:01 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> A reminder for everyone that the vote is scheduled to end tonight. Please
> verify and vote!
>
> @Galen I'll
A reminder for everyone that the vote is scheduled to end tonight. Please
verify and vote!
@Galen I'll take a look and fix the handwritten note.
>From the release notes:
> ConfigurationProperties.ssl-enabled-components supports `none` option as
advertised.
This is incorrect. The fix for GEODE-5830 was to remove "none" as an option.
Signatures and digests look good, gfsh works.
Speaking of verifying commits, does it make sense to sign rele
+1 on the basis of the below tests.
-- Verified SHAs
-- Verified signatures.
-- Build apache-geode, apache-geode-examples, apache-geode-native
-- Ran the examples
-- start gfsh, start server, create region, do a put, verify using query.
--Verified commit IDs with the release tags.
We should creat
Thanks again for catching this! This should now be fixed.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:42 AM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> Looks like someone executed CMake in the source directory.
>
> > On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
> >
> > The native source distribution tarball seems to have a lot of f
Looks like someone executed CMake in the source directory.
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> The native source distribution tarball seems to have a lot of files that
> aren't in source control. See attached:
>
> -Dan
>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:19 PM Alexander Murmann wr
The native source distribution tarball seems to have a lot of files that
aren't in source control. See attached:
-Dan
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:19 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> Hi Apache Geode community,
>
> Below you find all the information for the the second release candidate of
> Geode 1.8.0
Hi Apache Geode community,
Below you find all the information for the the second release candidate of
Geode 1.8.0. All packaging issues related to Geode native should be
resolved in this candidate. Everything else is unchanged.
Please review and provide feedback, so that the vote can end by the e
19 matches
Mail list logo
